Because if we're going to try and stop the misuse of our favorite comics and their protagonists by the companies that write and publish them, we've got to see what both the printed and online comics news is doing wrong. This blog focuses on both the good and the bad, the newspaper media and the online websites. Unabashedly. Unapologetically. Scanning the media for what's being done right and what's being done wrong.

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

An anti-war activist reprints early anti-war comics

Here's an item in the Fort Smith Times-Record interviewing the head of Yoe Books on the topic of some reprints they've done of old Charlton stories from the early Silver Age. The publisher's motives don't sound altruistic, but do sound stuck in the 60s:

With the recent release of “The Unknown Anti-War Comics,” Yoe Books publisher Craig Yoe has once again proven that comics can and do attempt every topic under the sun — and that he is going to bring them to us.

“Unknown Anti-War Comics” assembles a generous collection of comics that are, yes, anti-war — moreso than, for example, other vintage books with that reputation. And they are generally unknown because they were published by lowly Charlton Comics during the late′50s and early ’60s — a full decade before the anti-Vietnam protests began screaming across headlines and TV screens.

How did such a book, which I didn’t know I needed until I read it, come to be? I asked Yoe himself, whose vast knowledge of comics and relentless work as a “comics archaeologist” isn’t the least bit exaggerated.

“The origin of the project was my own active involvement in the anti-war movement during Vietnam,” Yoe said in an interview. “I was a comics fan back then, too, and passing out leaflets I cobbled together, composed of powerful World War I-era anti-war political cartoons, to pass out on my college campus. About five years ago I stumbled across some decidedly anti-war stories in some obscure comic books and dug in and was amazed to find many more — enough for a book, anyway! Yeah, because they are comics they’re quite entertaining, but these unknown stories do have a powerful message against the atomic bomb, war, militarization, plus greed and prejudice, the root causes of war.”

But does the man realize it's the identified enemies who're the problem, not those acting in defense of the innocents and against the evil? I know he didn't attack WW2, and not the Korean war either, but his work as an anti-war activist during Vietnam leaves reason to wonder - was he aware the Viet Cong in itself was an evil entity, one whom even US politicians spectacularly failed to defeat because they wouldn't enter northern Vietnam to bring down their HQ?

Included in the book are the only two issues of “Never Again” (1955-56), an oddball, short-lived series whose intended audience is hard to imagine and whose existence is hard to explain. “Never Again” shows the futility and downside of war from the Battle of Crecy, to the pursuit of Chief Joseph, to the world wars and more. “Two Men in the Sky,” a story about aviators in World War I, will being a lump to even the most resistant of throats and is probably better written than almost anything in EC’s “Aces High” or DC’s “Enemy Ace.”

If the story in question makes it look like it's bad for the good guys to fight the bad guys, I find that troubling. And why should it be any better than Enemy Ace, for example? Or, why is war immediately futile, rather than whether the management by commanders is? That's exactly why Vietnam wasn't won by the time it officially ended in 1975.

Other Charlton books get into the mix, especially science fiction, like “Mysteries of Unexplored Worlds,” “Space Adventures, ” “Space War,” “Strange Suspense Stories” and “Unusual Tales.” The bulk of the art is carried by journeymen Bob Forgione, Charles Nicholas and Bill Molno, but fan-favorites Ross Andru, Steve Ditko, Dick Giordano and Carmine Infantino also contribute. The final story, “Doomsday Machine,” is by the under-appreciated Pat Boyette, and may be the finest work of his career.

“The quality of art is always a prime consideration,” Yoe said of his selection process. “You have a comic book master, Steve Ditko, at the height of his powers, in his lushest period. And the other artists in this compendium produced strong journeyman fare.

“But then the series had to be on point,” he continued, “decidedly anti-war. And, yes, true and importantly to the comic book form, they had to be entertaining. Otherwise comics with a message, or an agenda, or a drum-beating point of view, can become dull, ham-fisted, and ultimately ineffective propaganda.”

Which could be said of some of Ditko’s later work, like the didactic “Mr. A.” But “Unknown” provides some shining examples of Ditko’s personal philosophy, long before Mr. A, or even Ditko’s plotting and artistry on his co-creations, Spider-Man and Dr. Strange. Is it possible he wrote these stories as well?

“I am not positive about the intricacies of Ditko’s philosophy,” Yoe said, “but I do start the book with a strong, previously unpublished anti-war statement that the great artist made in a letter to a fan. I suspect many of these stories were written, un-credited, by Joe Gill, who was a veteran.”

Whoever wrote them, what's telling is that Yoe doesn't seem supportive of Ditko's Ayn Rand-derived philosophy. That told, it's interesting Yoe's making the very points a lot of people on the Comicsgate side of the argument made, that entertainment value is lost when politics take up too much of the story at hand. I've wondered before, and will again, why these particular liberals are the ones allowed to make valid arguments relating to what's gone wrong with today's entertainment, but when we the consumers do the same, suddenly, it's not?

Which raised a question.

“Did his experience turn him off to war/combat?” Yoe wondered. “Or was he understandably caught up in the fear of the Cold War and The Bomb that was pervasive in America in the mid-20th century, when these comics were produced? Or was the subject just fodder for a good entertaining tale? I couldn’t say for sure. But these are stupendous stories, with terrific art and a solid anti-war point of view no matter how they came about or the exact feeling behind them.”

Which is what differentiates them from better-known anti-war stories, like those of Harvey Kurtzman for EC’s “Two-Fisted Tales” and “Frontline Combat,” or Warren’s “Blazing Combat.” Yoe explained:

“As I said in the book, I don’t think Kurtzman’s EC comics and other similar comics were anti-war, as has been popularly thought. The EC comics show the grim horror of war and are free of military jingoism, but Kurtzman ultimately felt war could be justified. As someone who tries my best to be a pacifist I do not agree with that. I was not able to find any other vintage comics besides the ones in ‘The Unknown Anti-War Comics’. If there are any they are, er ... unknown to me.”

How telling, too, that Yoe employs the negative connotation "jingoism", which is just another way of equating patriotism badly with battle sentiment. His approach does little more than make, say, the US army the ones in the wrong, while obscuring many of the evil movements they've had to go miles out of their way to fight against, like Nazis, Communists, and Islamic terrorists. If no clear distinctions are made, then it's no wonder you'd have so much poor attitudes towards the army and what causes it fought, past and present.

And later comics aren’t much help, as the war genre as a whole fell off a cliff, sales-wise, during the Vietnam War.

Marvel’s “Sgt. Fury” tried to compensate with socially relevant, one-topic stories like “The Deserter” and “The All-American”. Mostly by veteran Gary Friedrich, the downbeat “The” series eschewed elements that glorified war in favor of showing the cost — although calling them anti-war might be a stretch.

Over at DC Comics, books like “G.I. Combat” and “Our Army at War” began slapping a “Make War No More” blurb at the end of each story in place of “The End.” This effort was roundly criticized as hypocritical, for providing 20 or more pages that made war look exciting, mildly offset by one blurb reflecting the audience’s attitude.

“I believe the sales of war comics, like war toys, were going down during the late ’60s and early ’70s anti-war sentiment,” Yoe said. “So DC just hollowly pasted that Make War No More slug on the end of each rah-rah, gung-ho fighting men story. They were hoping that could help bolster their flagging sales somehow with this insincere nod to hippie peaceniks. DC was as laughably anti-war in their war comics with this artificial Make War No More symbol as they were embarrassingly ‘hip’ with their graphic cover trade dress, consisting of their self-congratulatory ‘go-go checks’! I do like Joe Kubert’s storytelling in those comics, though, and who can hate go-go checks? But let’s not be fooled!”

While it's possible Marvel goofed towards the end of Sgt. Fury's official run (new stories ceased in about 1974, though it continued with reprints until 1981), I think DC actually did worse by closing out the stories with that "Make War No More" blurb, because it risks making it look like it's the US army that has to stop going to war, not a demand for enemy countries to cease marketing evil. Something which, now that I think of it, Sgt. Fury didn't actually do, if the whole idea was to show that war against evil has inevitable costs, but has to be done if innocent civilians and their communities are to survive and have a future. DC may have subsequently abandoned those MWNM blurbs, and Sgt. Rock, which grew out of titles like Our Army At War, lasted until 1988.

While war comics as a whole are rare these days, they do exist. But the most interesting trend comes in the form of graphic novels by journalists or veterans reporting the brutalizing effects of war on civilians and soldiers alike. Joe Sacco’s “Palestine” and Joe Kubert’s “Fax from Sarajevo” would make fine companions for “The Unknown Anti-War Comics.”

While those books are too current for Yoe’s time frame, he is four-square behind the effort.

“Bravo to the writers, the artists and the publishers,” he said. “I think there have been some moving anti-war graphic novels in the last 10 years, and am thrilled that those creators are making their voices heard in the small way we all can. There isn’t large galvanizing anti-war movement now like there was in the ’60s, but God knows we need one!”

Obviously, despite the stories in “Unknown Anti-War Comics being more than a half century old, they still apply to today’s world. Sadly, war seems to be a constant these days.

There is even a story about refugees from outer space landing on Earth that may sound familiar to followers of today’s politics. “We seek refuge,” says a sad-faced alien in “No Common Ground.” “We have brought our women and children. We need help! ... Surely you can find a place where we can live!”

The Earth government’s response? Build a wall around them! This story was written in 1963, and it seems some things never change.

On the surface, that does sound like the illegal immigration crisis the US is now facing on its southern borders. But chances are just as well it wasn't intended as such back in the 50s/60s, and the modern propagandists are hijacking it for their own politics. Or was it? Well then that was pretty low of whomever put it together to concoct a story that may have made the US look bad allegorically towards refugees. What this can remind us is that, even before leftism began taking off more noticeably in the Bronze Age, there was still some propaganda favoring leftism even before that.

It’s astounding how on point all of these stories are, even all these years later. “Why do we glorify violence and war and make peace seem the folly of fools?” asks Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams in “The Unknown Anti-War Comics.”

It’s a question it seems we’ve been asking for a very long time.

But not from the right angles. Let us be clear. War is awful, but distinctions should be made, and blame should be laid at the feet of the enemy movements that begin it. For example, the Islamic State, Iran's autocracy, and even the Islamofascists in Europe, both immigrants and homegrown. And when the specific enemies inflict horrors upon innocents, it must be made clear war is an awful thing because of what totalitarians have done to the defenseless innocents in their wake.

Maybe the most annoying thing is that, if liberals are the ones glorifying violence and war, they're not taking accountability for a potentially ill-advised direction. You could end up wondering if they're making it sound more like conservatives are sensationalizing war as a result. And this is what the mainstream media thinks is worth everyone's time, rather than a war story that could show both the horrors and also the successes and failures alike waged in wars between good and evil. Totally uncreative thinking.

"while I think Kubert was a fine artist, it's regrettable he'd publish a GN taking the side of the Bosnian Muslims, when they were the ones who'd begun the war, and there were Bosnians prosecuted and imprisoned for torture and murder of Serbs."

Kubert's Faxes From Sarajevo was a true-life story about what happened to his friend and colleague, and the man's family, during the war. The guy did not start the war. He was never tried for war crimes and no one ever suggested he tortured and murdered anyone.

The book did not 'close out' Kubert's career; he wrote and drew some of the most significant work of his career after it.

It is very rare to find a war in which one side is all good and the other side all evil. It is usually more evil against less evil at best. It is that absolute mind set, in which you know God and destiny are on your side and against the enemy, that causes the bad guys to go to war.

" one whom even US politicians spectacularly failed to defeat because they wouldn't enter northern Vietnam to bring down their HQ?"

The US never had the objective of invading and conquering the North, something that likely would have been a disaster and could have brought Russia into the war. But the post you link to in support of this doesn't say this at all; it actually says the opposite, that the US didn't need to invade the North in order to win the war.

"But does the man realize it's the identified enemies who're the problem, not those acting in defense of the innocents and against the evil? I know he didn't attack WW2, and not the Korean war either, but his work as an anti-war activist during Vietnam leaves reason to wonder - was he aware the Viet Cong in itself was an evil entity, one whom even US politicians spectacularly failed to defeat because they wouldn't enter northern Vietnam to bring down their HQ?"

Well, to be fair, you could argue that US Politicians actually did soundly defeat the VC thanks to the Tet Offensive utterly destroying them so badly that they couldn't replenish their numbers. Besides, technically, America actually WON Vietnam, even helmed the treaty signings. Unfortunately, thanks to Watergate, the Democrats just threw away our victory. Unfortunately, that jerk isn't even the only one who tried to use a medium to push anti-Vietnam sentiments, or any anti-war sentiments for that matter (well, anti-American war sentiments, anyways). George Lucas created Star Wars specifically to indoctrinate the then-current audience on how the Vietcong were, and I use this term very sarcastically obviously, "our moral betters" and how we're a bunch of imperialists. The Rebels were supposed to be Vietcong expies, while we Americans were the Evil Empire according to him. Lucas is arguably even worse in that regard, since he implied in James Cameron's Sci-Fi retrospective AMC series that when he created Star Wars, he knew full well that the Vietcong were terrorists (since you could argue that the comics guy simply was unaware of the VC's true nature). Well, gee, George Lucas, if the so-called heroes are a bunch of mass-murdering Communists, then consider me an Empire supporter from now on, because I dislike being tricked like that.

As far as the bit about World War 2 and Korean War, to be fair, I suspect the only reason the left supported the former was because it also happened to be the same event that had Hitler invading the USSR. In fact, there were anti-war protests against World War II that ended up turning into support for the war literally overnight during Operation Barbarossa. As far as Korea, the Communists had their hands tied with McCarthyism, so they probably couldn't afford to protest the Korean War even if they wanted to (that, and I suspect the UN's pretty much a Marxist plant).

"It is very rare to find a war in which one side is all good and the other side all evil. It is usually more evil against less evil at best. It is that absolute mind set, in which you know God and destiny are on your side and against the enemy, that causes the bad guys to go to war."

Yeah, about that, I don't think the Bolsheviks and Jacobins ever viewed God as being on their side. Quite the opposite, they viewed God as the enemy and on the enemy's side. Not to mention the Bolsheviks weren't even of the absolute mind set, if Vladimir Lenin's quotes of "We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth... We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.", "The best revolutionary is youth devoid of morals.", and "There are no morals in politics there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel." are of any indication. Or, heck, General Louis Grignon's statement during Vendee of "everyone [the Infernal Columns] met [at Vendee] was to be immediately killed, even if they were Republicans". Those point more to a relativistic mindset than a truly absolute mindset. A truly absolute mindset requires that you not only fight the enemy, but also avoid engaging in the same behavior as the enemy that you deem evil. To put it another way, absolute mindsets are similar to Batman's "no kill" rule.

The Bolsheviks did not believe that God was on the side of their enemies because they thought He did not exist. They believed that Destiny, economic forces, the path of history, were all on their side, and that they were in the right and their enemies were evil.

The right liked Hitler in the 1930s because he was putting down the Bolsheviks. The right in America were isolationists who wanted to stay out of the war and thought Roosevelt was a socialist.

The 'Marxist plant' of the United Nations fought the Korean War against the Communist North; the U S troops fought as part of a United Nations military force. The American Communist Party was against American involvement in the Korean War - but the party by the mid-1950s mostly consisted of FBI agents; most of the committed members had left by then.

If George Lucas intended Star Wars to be pro-Vietnamese propaganda, he did a really bad job. Noone seeing that movie is going to come out thinking that Darth Vader is RIchard Nixon. Just watching the movie, it just seems like a Robin Hood story or a David and Goliath story; the good guys could be a metaphor for Israelis or American revolutionary war forces as easily as for the Vietnamese. There is nothing in the movie itself that even hints at Vietnam.

Little noted historical fact: When Nixon ended the draft, the large scale anti-Vietnam war protests effectively ended. In general they weren't "anti-war" per se, just anti-being drafted and having to interrupt their lives with military service. The college students had an exemption, but a couple of failed grades and it's "off to Vietnam".

"The Bolsheviks did not believe that God was on the side of their enemies because they thought He did not exist. They believed that Destiny, economic forces, the path of history, were all on their side, and that they were in the right and their enemies were evil."

Why would the Bolsheviks resort to lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, all of those things, and even explicitly state that one who lacked morals made the best revolutionary if they believed themselves to be "in the right?" If anything, anyone who desired that morality not factor into anything are tacitly admitting they are in the wrong, since morality is as "in the right" as one can get.

"The right liked Hitler in the 1930s because he was putting down the Bolsheviks. The right in America were isolationists who wanted to stay out of the war and thought Roosevelt was a socialist."

No, the right hated Hitler as much as Stalin. It was the progressive left who loved Hitler, as much as Stalin in fact.

"The 'Marxist plant' of the United Nations fought the Korean War against the Communist North; the U S troops fought as part of a United Nations military force. The American Communist Party was against American involvement in the Korean War - but the party by the mid-1950s mostly consisted of FBI agents; most of the committed members had left by then."

Actually, the committed members went underground, they never left (not to mention McCarthy was trying to stop them). As far as the United Nations being a Marxist plant, let me point out that Stalin left the UN at the time, which probably factored a bit into their decision (and besides, Alger Hiss, the guy who practically brainstormed the UN, was a confirmed communist, confirmed by Whittaker, no less, and the whole UN Charter was a blatant copy/paste of the Soviet Constitution, itself derived from the Communist Manifesto).

"If George Lucas intended Star Wars to be pro-Vietnamese propaganda, he did a really bad job. Noone seeing that movie is going to come out thinking that Darth Vader is RIchard Nixon. Just watching the movie, it just seems like a Robin Hood story or a David and Goliath story; the good guys could be a metaphor for Israelis or American revolutionary war forces as easily as for the Vietnamese. There is nothing in the movie itself that even hints at Vietnam."

Oh, he most certainly intended for it to be pro-Vietcong propaganda (not pro-Vietnamese other than maybe North Vietnam. It certainly wasn't for the South Vietnamese). Also, it was Palpatine who was the Nixon expy, NOT Vader. As far as your point, that's EXACTLY the problem, unfortunately, it's that he disguised them well enough that audiences will think the Vietcong are the same as the American revolutionaries in ideals. And speaking as someone who has witnessed people teaching students that the French Revolution and American Revolution are the same thing despite the very obvious differences (like, for example, we didn't guillotine our members or enact mob violence, while the French Revolutionaries did), or even indicate Americans were terrorists in the stupid "your terrorists are our freedom fighters" philosophy, not to mention saw the episode History for NCIS Los Angeles where the Red Tide group, despite obviously being derived from Mao Zedong's views (since they were an offshoot of the Gun Barrel Party, a Weathermen expy) tried to make a moral comparison to the founding fathers despite not even remotely being comparable as G Callen pointed out, I think that's enough to raise some concern. The most dangerous propaganda is the one that's extremely subtle. That's in fact how the Soviets managed to pull off disinformation.

And besides, thanks largely to Joseph Ritson's rewrites to the lore for Robin Hood to promote the Jacobin cause (contrary to popular belief, Robin Hood was not about "stealing from the rich to give to the poor", it was taking back the money that the villagers earned from hard work from government encroachment via taxes), I don't think using Robin Hood is a good way to dispel the anti-Vietnam messaging of Star Wars.

"Little noted historical fact: When Nixon ended the draft, the large scale anti-Vietnam war protests effectively ended. In general they weren't "anti-war" per se, just anti-being drafted and having to interrupt their lives with military service. The college students had an exemption, but a couple of failed grades and it's "off to Vietnam"."

Yeah, and there's also some that literally were committing treason, like the ones who were outright rooting for Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong to win, didn't even give a darn about the draft ending. A notable example of this was the Weathermen Underground.

Soviet disinformation was never subtle. It was very heavy handed, a result of the fact that most people writing it had no experience of living in Western countries and little understanding of the culture. The heirs of the KGB are writing more subtle propaganda now, and have media like Youtube and Facebook to propagate it.

I don't see the resemblance between Star Wars and the Viet Cong. The rebels were fighting to defeat the Empire; North Vietnam was fighting a civil war and never attacked America or Americans except on Vietnamese soil. The rebels were fighting to restore the rightful government of the empire, the princess to be exact; the Vietnamese were not trying to restore the British in North America. The rebels were relying on spirituality against science; the North Vietnamese were materialist communists. The rebels were traditionalists, the North was setting aside tradition, and has become extremely capitalistic.

Robin Hood is myth and legend; there are a lot of different equally valid interpretations.

American revolutionaries did go in for mob violence; just ask the United Empire Loyalists who had to flee to the Northern colonies.

The American right was anti-Hitler in the 1930s? Not Henry Ford, or Father Coughlin, or Charles Lindbergh (who had been a republican congressman). The Bund was for the Republicans and against Roosevelt.

"Soviet disinformation was never subtle. It was very heavy handed, a result of the fact that most people writing it had no experience of living in Western countries and little understanding of the culture. The heirs of the KGB are writing more subtle propaganda now, and have media like Youtube and Facebook to propagate it."

Actually, Soviet disinformation tended to be very subtle, precisely BECAUSE they want to manipulate Western sources into propagating that information for them. Just ask Ion Mihai Pacepa. He'll tell you from prior experience disseminating that propaganda as a member of the DIE before defecting to the West. Heck, he even wrote a book on the subject called Disinformation. It was KGB propaganda, for example, that led loads of people to think JFK's assassination was an inside job instead of Cuba or even the Soviets. Not to mention it was KGB propaganda that led the anti-Vietnam war movement, and even leading to Che Guevara being lionized.

"I don't see the resemblance between Star Wars and the Viet Cong. The rebels were fighting to defeat the Empire; North Vietnam was fighting a civil war and never attacked America or Americans except on Vietnamese soil. The rebels were fighting to restore the rightful government of the empire, the princess to be exact; the Vietnamese were not trying to restore the British in North America. The rebels were relying on spirituality against science; the North Vietnamese were materialist communists. The rebels were traditionalists, the North was setting aside tradition, and has become extremely capitalistic."

It was not a "civil war", it was an outright invasion. And in any case, this 1973 draft penned by Lucas himself made it VERY clear that the Rebels and the Vietcong were joined at the hip (which you can read here: https://otnesse.tumblr.com/post/162081709399/this-is-from-george-lucas-1973-notes-for-star ), and the whole "Force" thing was meant to be a metaphor for the whole "little man takes down giants" that leftists adhere to in order to disguise their attempts, as Lucas himself and Walter Murch both admitted in two different sources. And the north is not capitalistic, it's still outright communistic.

"Robin Hood is myth and legend; there are a lot of different equally valid interpretations."

Not really. Until Joseph Ritson did his handiwork, it was generally understood to be promoting the concept of the Magna Carta before the Magna Carta was even an idea.

"American revolutionaries did go in for mob violence; just ask the United Empire Loyalists who had to flee to the Northern colonies."

No they didn't. If they did, John Adams never would have given those Brits a fair trial and if anything would have called for their blood in a maniacal manner. Heck, even Ann Coulter made it very clear the Founding Fathers and the American War for Independence NEVER engaged in mob violence, while the French Revolution did in fact do that.

"The American right was anti-Hitler in the 1930s? Not Henry Ford, or Father Coughlin, or Charles Lindbergh (who had been a republican congressman). The Bund was for the Republicans and against Roosevelt."

Actually, there's little evidence that Henry Ford actually supported or backed Hitler. He was an anti-Semite, which he recanted by 1927, and the Volkswagon was partly derived from Ford's model, but nothing else that directly ties him to Hitler. As far as Father Coughlin, there's no mention of his party, and if anything, his initial support for FDR's New Deal suggests he was closer to a liberal than a conservative. What? Are you going to claim Stalin's conservative just because he ice-picked Trotsky? As far as Charles Lindbergh, there's little to suggest he had any interest or support for the Nazi ideology, and if anything, he vehemently rejected those charges. Can't comment much on the Bund, although unless I'm mistaken, I think Jonah Goldberg indicated that the Bund rallies were more closely aligned to FDR's New Deal than Republicans in his book "Liberal Fascism."

"What? Are you going to claim Stalin's conservative just because he ice-picked Trotsky?" Stalin denounced Trotsky as an enemy and betrayer of communism. Coughlin denounced and preached against communism. Not so hard to tell the difference.

Interesting how when someone challenges his claim that the right was anti-hitler hotness responds by assertively thundering that there is no proof that prominent right wingers were pro-hitler! Not the same thing. Walking back much? Ford was awarded a medal by hitler in 1938, the grand cross of the German eagle adorned with swastikas, highest honour he could bestow on a nongerman; Ford accepted it. Lindbergh was stridently against America entering into the war. They were both America Firsters, to use the slogan of the right-wing isolationists who were against US involvement in the war against Hitler.

As for Ann Coulter - when did she become an expert on the American Revolution? John Adams did not March with the mob, but that does not mean there was no mob action. It is like trying to say that Charlottesville never happened because Trump wasn't there waving a tiki torch.

"Stalin denounced Trotsky as an enemy and betrayer of communism. Coughlin denounced and preached against communism. Not so hard to tell the difference."

Yeah, and Trotsky denounced Stalin as being an enemy and betrayer of Communism. Your point? Heck, even regarding Hitler and Stalin, they merely had a rivalry over control over the left and were not ideological enemies. Their main beef was more over how Socialism was to be implemented (Hitler wanted Germany to be the main power base. The Communists didn't care about national borders and wanted it applied everywhere with no real capital other than the USSR as a rallying point). And I wouldn't call a guy who supports the New Deal "conservative" or "right wing."

"Interesting how when someone challenges his claim that the right was anti-hitler hotness responds by assertively thundering that there is no proof that prominent right wingers were pro-hitler! Not the same thing. Walking back much? Ford was awarded a medal by hitler in 1938, the grand cross of the German eagle adorned with swastikas, highest honour he could bestow on a nongerman; Ford accepted it. Lindbergh was stridently against America entering into the war. They were both America Firsters, to use the slogan of the right-wing isolationists who were against US involvement in the war against Hitler."

I'm not walking back anything. As far the medal, let me also point out that Ford also created an automobile plant in Soviet Russia under Stalin, when most foreign companies aren't even allowed to set foot in Russia or establish anything there. Should we call him a Stalinist Commie, then? And being against entering World War II =/= pro-Nazi. There are also a few pro-Nazi protestors who encouraged people to go to World War II as well, with the only real difference being they wanted America to go fight the Soviets.

"As for Ann Coulter - when did she become an expert on the American Revolution? John Adams did not March with the mob, but that does not mean there was no mob action. It is like trying to say that Charlottesville never happened because Trump wasn't there waving a tiki torch."

She wrote a book called Demonic, which detailed left-wing mob action and how it had its roots in the French Revolution. She even dedicated about three chapters, two of which on the French Revolution, and one on the American revolution proper, and highlighted the stark differences between the two, contrary to the left-wing claims that they're the same thing. And if that's not enough, she footnoted her sources for each chapter. As far as your comment about John Adams, my point was that John Adams neither led nor encouraged any mob mentalities. He doesn't need to be there waving anything to influence mobs. To give you an example, Jean Paul Marat wasn't physically present directing the Sans Culottes in their bloodthirsty intimidation tactics towards the assembly, but he obviously was involved in the mobs with his newsletters and statements. John Adams not only didn't participate in mob action, he did the exact opposite: Gave the Brits, whom if I must point out he outright hated, a fair trial, even acquitted six of them, and even the two who were tried only had their thumbs branded instead of being torn apart by angry villagers. Also, Trump was never involved in Charlottesville. In fact, the so-called "right wingers" in Charlottesville? They were actually left-wingers posing as right wingers. The guy who organized the event formerly led Occupy Wall Street, for example.

So let me get this straight. The largest white supremacist assembly in America in this century was all composed of left wingers.

Richard Spencer is actually a secret leftist, who has spent years pretending to be a far-rightist in order to embarrass Trump.

Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer are all secret left wingers. Andy Anglin is a left winger.

David Duke of the KKK, who was also at the Charlottesville rally, is a secret left winger.

Rise Above Movement members? All secretly leftists.

League of the South? ditto.

Somehow, the organizers managed to spread the word among left-wingers across 35 states to come to the rally disguised as right wingers, keeping this a secret from everyone else, while making sure no actual right wingers were attracted by the ‘unite the right’ propaganda and accidentally showed up to ruin the show. The violent aggression against counter protesters? Death of Heather Heyer? Easily explained - the anti-fa people were all secretly right wingers, trying to embarrass Hillary Clinton, so it was okay to try and beat them up. This is not the first time this has happened, since we know from Jason Kessler that the Occupy Wall Street movement was also a secret right wing organization set up for the sole purpose of teasing Naomi Klein.

But Trump has them fooled - he and Pence are secretly left-wingers trying to embarrass the Republican Party too. And of course under orders from Putin. It makes as much sense as saying the Unite the Right movement consisted of leftists. Ever wondered how Trump knew that Obama was born in Kenya? It is because Obama is the secret love child of Donald Trump and Angela Davis; Davis went to Kenya to give birth at Trump’s insistence, on a trip paid for by him, so as not to embarrass either of them. They then gave the baby away to a nice white lady who agreed to raise him in Hawaii, far enough away that neither of them ever expected to hear about him again. You can tell by the ears; Trump and Obama both have funny ears that stick out a bit. The family resemblance is remarkable once you click on to it. Obama inherited his liking of golf from his bio-dad.

"Richard Spencer is actually a secret leftist, who has spent years pretending to be a far-rightist in order to embarrass Trump."

Exactly right. In fact, he has indicated he was for the Soviet Union over America as early as the first Cold War, which disqualifies him from holding to conservative views. Not to mention he supports nationalization of the healthcare, which last I checked, was a left-wing issue.

"Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer are all secret left wingers."

Never said anything about Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer, and quite frankly, I'd argue he's AGAINST white supremacy based on his disavowing them. Plus, he's closer to a moderate libertarian anyways, neither right or left. Here's the thing about the mainstream media, they lie, constantly. They lied about David Zimmerman during the Trayvon Martin case, and they also lied about the guy who shot up Aurora's theater a while back of being an NRA member.

"Andy Anglin is a left winger."

Daily Stormer reporter Andy Anglin? Yeah, about that, despite the moniker, the neo-Nazis, like their namesake, are not actually right-wing. They're a socialist group in all but name. In fact, want to know who originated the lie that they're even slightly right-wing, let alone far-right? It's two sources: Joseph Stalin, in order to pull a CYA for Socialism, and the Frankfurt School, a bunch of nihilistic Marxists who intended to subvert America into Marxism, and even cynically used their Jewish background to pull it off.

"David Duke of the KKK, who was also at the Charlottesville rally, is a secret left winger."

Is that a trick question? Of COURSE David Duke and the KKK were left-wingers. The KKK was formed as the terrorist arm of the Democrat party, and last I checked, David Duke is a Democrat, not a Republican. And maybe I should remind you that after Trump never took the bait with him, he went out and backed Hillary Clinton, who last I checked is NOT right-wing. Though I will give David Duke some credit, at least he recognized Communism was bad based on his cheering on Trump. Then again, even JFK and LBJ realized Communism was evil, and they're not exactly right-of-center, or have any right-wing elements at all other than maybe patriotism to America in LBJ's case.

"Rise Above Movement members? All secretly leftists."

See Andy Anglin.

"League of the South? ditto."

It's similar to the Neo Nazis and Richard Spencer, and they aren't at all right-wing.

"Somehow, the organizers managed to spread the word among left-wingers across 35 states to come to the rally disguised as right wingers, keeping this a secret from everyone else, while making sure no actual right wingers were attracted by the ‘unite the right’ propaganda and accidentally showed up to ruin the show. The violent aggression against counter protesters? Death of Heather Heyer? Easily explained - the anti-fa people were all secretly right wingers, trying to embarrass Hillary Clinton, so it was okay to try and beat them up. This is not the first time this has happened, since we know from Jason Kessler that the Occupy Wall Street movement was also a secret right wing organization set up for the sole purpose of teasing Naomi Klein."

Never said the Antifa members were right-wing. Actually, if anything, they're on the same side of the spectrum (ie, the left wing), much like the Nazis and German Communist Party members. Also, the guy who united Unite the Right, Jason Kessler, worked with Obama for Occupy Wall Street, and has made a video denouncing America. And I never said or implied that Kessler was right-wing, quite the opposite, actually, I said he was in fact a leftist.

"But Trump has them fooled - he and Pence are secretly left-wingers trying to embarrass the Republican Party too. And of course under orders from Putin. It makes as much sense as saying the Unite the Right movement consisted of leftists. Ever wondered how Trump knew that Obama was born in Kenya? It is because Obama is the secret love child of Donald Trump and Angela Davis; Davis went to Kenya to give birth at Trump’s insistence, on a trip paid for by him, so as not to embarrass either of them. They then gave the baby away to a nice white lady who agreed to raise him in Hawaii, far enough away that neither of them ever expected to hear about him again. You can tell by the ears; Trump and Obama both have funny ears that stick out a bit. The family resemblance is remarkable once you click on to it. Obama inherited his liking of golf from his bio-dad."

While Donald Trump is indeed right-wing, he never made any secret about that in the first place. The one who has anyone fooled is Jason Kessler fooling CNN and MSNBC for thinking that he's actually right wing. And aside from that, Donald Trump, when speaking after Charlottesville, made it VERY clear that the Neo-Nazis involved are to be condemned (the "fine people" remark was referring to the non-white-supremacist participants who were merely trying to protect the Robert E. Lee statue. As usual, CNN and MSNBC misreported their news).

As far as Obama, Obama being Kenyan was a rather open secret. For goodness sakes, I actually found Obama's birth certificate in PDF format a while back, stumbled upon it if I must be honest. Trump doesn't need to have been Obama's father in order to know that. Not to mention Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate had been proven by Joe Arpaio to be fake anyways.

"If we ever needed conclusive proof that eotness was a sock puppet for left wingers trying to embarrass conservatives, I think we have it now."

I'm not a left-winger, nor would I ever allow the left-wing to manipulate me for anything, let alone embarrass conservatives, not after college when I saw exactly how they're brainwashing factories, or how Hideo Kojima pretty much lied in Peace Walker about Che Guevara and all of that.

Oh No! The sjws, not content with brainwashing our children, are now busy brainwashing our factories! Luckily all our appliances are made overseas, or we would be in real trouble. Just don't buy a domestic car.

Spencer never said he was for the USSR over USA in the Cold War. The article from the Guardian that eotness mentions never says he did. It does not have Spencer saying communism is good; it has him indicating that communism was a bad ideology. It does quote him as saying that he felt the Soviet Union saved Russia from an even worse ideology, that of SJWism:“I think the Soviet Union protected Russians from an even worse ideology, that is the liberalism of the United States and Western Europe”This is consistent with the current right-wing fondness for post-Soviet Russia, a fondness that has admittedly left many old-line conservatives, and liberal cold warriors, feeling a bit bewildered and slow to catch up. But better Putin than Clinton!; the enemy of my frenemy is my friend and all that.

"Oh No! The sjws, not content with brainwashing our children, are now busy brainwashing our factories! Luckily all our appliances are made overseas, or we would be in real trouble. Just don't buy a domestic car."

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the likes of Disney ARE brainwashing their workers and even hiring cheap labor and forcing their own workers to train their replacements.

"Spencer never said he was for the USSR over USA in the Cold War. The article from the Guardian that eotness mentions never says he did. It does not have Spencer saying communism is good; it has him indicating that communism was a bad ideology. It does quote him as saying that he felt the Soviet Union saved Russia from an even worse ideology, that of SJWism:“I think the Soviet Union protected Russians from an even worse ideology, that is the liberalism of the United States and Western Europe”"

Yeah, actually he did say that. Liberal democracy back then is the same as it is now. More of a slow-acting poison compared to the USSR's throwing someone into a furnace. And yes, actually, when he advocates for government-mandated healthcare, he IS in effect advocating for communism, since that's a key function of communism. And don't forget, Michel Foucault implied that Harry Truman's America and Stalin's USSR were one and the same even in the first Cold War, so that kind of sentiment predated even Richard Spencer.

"This is consistent with the current right-wing fondness for post-Soviet Russia, a fondness that has admittedly left many old-line conservatives, and liberal cold warriors, feeling a bit bewildered and slow to catch up. But better Putin than Clinton!; the enemy of my frenemy is my friend and all that."

No, current right-wingers are NOT fond of the USSR at all, nor for that matter are they even fond of post-Soviet Russia. I'd know. I'm a current right-winger (born in 1990, during the very late stages of the Cold War), and I see Putin as being the same trash as the USSR, see him as wanting to revitalize the USSR and even promoting Stalin and to a certain extent Lenin. And I know plenty of right-wing sources that made this clear, like freerepublic or Western Free Press, for example. Heck, as far as Putin and Clinton, they're the same person as far as I'm concerned, both want the same thing, and thus both should perish as far as I'm concerned. I'm very anti-Communist, and want that ideology dead. Heck, I want French Revolutionary ideology of ANY sort exterminated as well.

I agree with eotness that the fascists and white supremacists who are joining conservative organizations and parties are not true conservatives, and are instead trying to infiltrate and take over conservative politics for their own ends:

About me

I'm Avi Green

From Jerusalem, Israel

I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.